RE: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 17:46, John Griffin wrote: Hello David, Since you were kind enough to clarify some matters on licensing I was hoping you would also be open to suggestions. Instead of charging a flat fee for each copy of MySQL that is resold why not charge a percentage up to a certain point. It might make it a bit easier for developers with inexpensive applications to choose your product. If I know that MySQL is going to be, for example, a constant ten percent of my sale cost I can price more competitively for the market. The is defiantly a boon for developers who are selling applications for the forty to sixty dollar market. As they say, ten percent of something is more than ten percent of nothing. Well we have always done percentage deals in some cases. The important point is that negotiating a percentage deals takes some human time. So it has to be a minimum total amount for us to make a profit on it. Sales people need to be paid to! If this pricing scheme will not work for MySQL can you please explain why? I am genuinely curious. It depends on the total amount of money involved. /David John -Original Message- From: David Axmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 2:14 PM To: Damir Dezeljin Cc: MySQL List Subject: Re: InterBase vs. Mysql On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 08:14, Damir Dezeljin wrote: Firstly excuse my poor english ;))) I read the entire mail thread. I'm useing MySQL for our own data storage (I use it to store our oceanographic data for internal use) - I guess that I don't need a commercial license for this. I have another question ... if I will do a commercial program in future which will use MySQL as backend, do I need to buy only one commercial license to link the program or does any customer need a commercial license if I don't want that my code to be GPLed? You need to buy a license for each distributed/sold version of your product that contains MySQL. But there are no limits on the number of clients that connects to that MySQL server of number of CPUs in the machine or so (like with our big proprietary competitors). /David (MySQL Co-Founder) -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
David- There are many of us out there who have a variety of DBs to choose from CodeBase, InterBase, FileMaker, Access..Before selecting MySQL or any other DB make sure it works for your client's needs..Otherwise you just would be tossing good money out the window... Regards, -Martin Hello David, Since you were kind enough to clarify some matters on licensing I was hoping you would also be open to suggestions. Instead of charging a flat fee for each copy of MySQL that is resold why not charge a percentage up to a certain point. It might make it a bit easier for developers with inexpensive applications to choose your product. If I know that MySQL is going to be, for example, a constant ten percent of my sale cost I can price more competitively for the market. The is defiantly a boon for developers who are selling applications for the forty to sixty dollar market. As they say, ten percent of something is more than ten percent of nothing. Well we have always done percentage deals in some cases. The important point is that negotiating a percentage deals takes some human time. So it has to be a minimum total amount for us to make a profit on it. Sales people need to be paid to! If this pricing scheme will not work for MySQL can you please explain why? I am genuinely curious. It depends on the total amount of money involved. /David John -Original Message- From: David Axmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 2:14 PM To: Damir Dezeljin Cc: MySQL List Subject: Re: InterBase vs. Mysql On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 08:14, Damir Dezeljin wrote: Firstly excuse my poor english ;))) I read the entire mail thread. I'm useing MySQL for our own data storage (I use it to store our oceanographic data for internal use) - I guess that I don't need a commercial license for this. I have another question ... if I will do a commercial program in future which will use MySQL as backend, do I need to buy only one commercial license to link the program or does any customer need a commercial license if I don't want that my code to be GPLed? You need to buy a license for each distributed/sold version of your product that contains MySQL. But there are no limits on the number of clients that connects to that MySQL server of number of CPUs in the machine or so (like with our big proprietary competitors). /David (MySQL Co-Founder) -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 21:26, John Griffin wrote: Gerald, One hundred MySQL licenses still works out to $90.00 USD. Even if it worked out to half that would still leave me with no margin and so no compensation for my time. I am trying to find a way of using MySQL in a very low cost market and still have still have pocket change after each sale. The current pricing scheme does not support this market and I am hoping that MySQL is open to suggestions to allow it to support that market. No 100 licenses has a lower price per copy. And embedded in a application that sells at 1000, 1 or 100 the price gets much lower. Basically they more you can commit to sell the lower price you get. And as others have commented for our sales people it not the price per copy that the key thing for spending time on a deal. It the total deal size. So if you are planning to sell 100 $50 applications we do not have a way to price it for you since that negotiation takes expensive human time. But if if you are selling for example 2 it another matter. /David - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 08:14, Damir Dezeljin wrote: Firstly excuse my poor english ;))) I read the entire mail thread. I'm useing MySQL for our own data storage (I use it to store our oceanographic data for internal use) - I guess that I don't need a commercial license for this. I have another question ... if I will do a commercial program in future which will use MySQL as backend, do I need to buy only one commercial license to link the program or does any customer need a commercial license if I don't want that my code to be GPLed? You need to buy a license for each distributed/sold version of your product that contains MySQL. But there are no limits on the number of clients that connects to that MySQL server of number of CPUs in the machine or so (like with our big proprietary competitors). /David (MySQL Co-Founder) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 18:06, Ben Clewett wrote: This will be my last posting. I don't belive I am being constructive and have no wish to instantly be hated by the whole of MySQL. Michael T. Babcock wrote: Ben Clewett wrote: MySQL say that this is an extension of the application, and therefore breaks the GPL, and therefore a licence is needed. They are however, the only big GPL user who thinks this way. No they're not. The issue is not the use of the server (as previously discussed a few weeks back), but the library. If you use the older library version (which is LGPL'd), you can basically do as you please as you believe you should be able to. As the new library is under the GPL, you can't legally link it to a non-GPL-compatible program at all (without purchasing a different license). What you say is that the API is in my application. The API is part of MySQL. Therefore my application is GPL or needs a licence. Therefore, if I was to use ODBC, I would not be using your API in my application, and could install MySQL under the GPL and use my application without licence? (If I so choose.) You forget that (as someone else pointed out, perhaps Ben) MySQL's Copyright still lies with MySQL AB. You can fork the code and modify and distribute it _under the GPL_ but that doesn't buy you anything -- you don't then have the right to link it against a commercial program or even to relicense it. All you have is a renamed version of MySQL that is still under the GPL. That's not what you're hoping for, is it? This may be true. I am a programmer, not a solicitor. It does seem to fly in the face of Ritchard Stallman's origional idea and intent of the GPL. So your software may be folked, but then not used as it then violates some other law. If that's the case, so be it. I better copyright all my GPL projects ASAP... Richard Stallmen thinks the MySQL dual licensing model is ok. He does not love it since he think all software should be free. I do meet him pretty often (I was for example at FSF meeting in Boston last Saturday). What goes against his views is proprietary software like the one you are writing. So he would prefer us to only do GPL software and force YOU to be GPL to. But we prefer to make you pay for not having to be GPL. And yes we are DEFINITELY not the only ones having this view of the GPL. Check the GPL FAQ at gnu.org. I do apologize for our sales people being rude. They should not be rude even when you project is to small for their attention. Many people here are perfectly happy with the GPL, I might add. I license all my MySQL-related code under the GPL. I don't distribute it to anyone, so its not terribly relevant, but its well marked and noted as being either GPL'd or for personal use only (most of which is GPL'd as well). I don't write much commercial, non-GPL code. I write a lot of commercial and GPL'd code though, and so do many other people (like MySQL AB). You might want to consider it too. I wish I had that sort of job I would prefer this option. Unfortunatelly I am a dying breed of employed programmer selling commercial applications. Maybe my own applications will be replaced with a GPL ones. I might even wright them my self. Until then, saving money on erronious licence fees payes for my family to eat. Where, if I may, I would love to leave this How come our licensing is erronous when your charging fro your software is not? There are a lot of MySQL programmers who are paid with these licensing fees that also have family's who has to eat! /David (MySQL Co-Founder) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: InterBase vs. Mysql
Hello David, Since you were kind enough to clarify some matters on licensing I was hoping you would also be open to suggestions. Instead of charging a flat fee for each copy of MySQL that is resold why not charge a percentage up to a certain point. It might make it a bit easier for developers with inexpensive applications to choose your product. If I know that MySQL is going to be, for example, a constant ten percent of my sale cost I can price more competitively for the market. The is defiantly a boon for developers who are selling applications for the forty to sixty dollar market. As they say, ten percent of something is more than ten percent of nothing. If this pricing scheme will not work for MySQL can you please explain why? I am genuinely curious. John -Original Message- From: David Axmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 2:14 PM To: Damir Dezeljin Cc: MySQL List Subject: Re: InterBase vs. Mysql On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 08:14, Damir Dezeljin wrote: Firstly excuse my poor english ;))) I read the entire mail thread. I'm useing MySQL for our own data storage (I use it to store our oceanographic data for internal use) - I guess that I don't need a commercial license for this. I have another question ... if I will do a commercial program in future which will use MySQL as backend, do I need to buy only one commercial license to link the program or does any customer need a commercial license if I don't want that my code to be GPLed? You need to buy a license for each distributed/sold version of your product that contains MySQL. But there are no limits on the number of clients that connects to that MySQL server of number of CPUs in the machine or so (like with our big proprietary competitors). /David (MySQL Co-Founder) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
At 05:27 AM 2/18/2003, you wrote: Hi, I am a MySQL admin. I like it very much. It is very quick,stable and easy in configuration. But I have a boss, who has been told about InterBase. He told me I should interest in the InterBase, because it is programmed by russian, who made a great project and told him mysql is totaly worse in comparison with the InterBase. Actually he didn't prooved it, he just heared about it from the russians. Did anyone met with the InterBase and can tel me something about it and prove me that the Mysql is BETTER? I need arguments for using the MySQL for a company (lets tell about 100 people, who use it very intensive through the whole day 7 days a week). Best regards, Maciej Bobrowski Maciej, I should point out that Interbase is not free. It is still being sold by Borland. Firebird, is the open source version and can be distributed for free. The two products branched off a couple of years ago. I've used all 3 products including MySQL. Interbase/Firebird has a couple of drawbacks to MySQL. The database server uses a lot more CPU than MySQL so it won't support heavy loads as well as MySQL. You'll see significant CPU differences after only 5 connected users. This is because Interbase/Firebird is considerably more complicated database than MySQL. It's referential integrity, triggers, transactions and other goodies will make a lot more work for the database server. Interbase/Firebird also uses transactions for all updates which on the surface sounds fine, but when new updates are written to the table, the old rows are still present in the table (archived but not visible). This makes rolling back a transaction extremely fast because it just decrements the current transaction level to re-activate the old rows. But this means after the transaction has been committed, the database has to be routinely swept to remove the older rows otherwise the database slows down after a while. You can easily have IB/FB automatically sweep the database after 'x' transactions. But users with large databases 100MB find that even with sweeping, their database will slow down after a while. The only way to get it back up to speed is to unload all of the data and reload the database, which is extremely time consuming for very large databases. You also have to take the database offline to do this. Interbase is excellent if you do not have a large number of connected users ( 50) or database with more than 100MB in size. If you do, it will take a lot of tweaking to get it to run fast. The upper limit for the max # of connected users was 254 (it's probably more than that now) and if you need to get more, then middleware is recommended. The problem with middleware like Midas/DataSnap costs money for each installed server. In the past there have been corruption problems with large databases but that problem is 3 years ago and may have been fixed (check the newsgroups to be sure). Also the earlier IB/FB did not support SMP very well. In fact, adding a second processor would actually slow the server down. This may have been fixed with the latest release of IB, but I don't know about FB. IB/FB is not going to be as fast as MySQL for most queries, it has far too much overhead. Summing up, IB is a very robust database when it comes to relational integrity and transactions. Unfortunately you're not going to see many people using it in a 24/7 operation like on a webserver, unless the database is small or readonly. It needs routine maintenance for it to run optimally. It is a lot like buying a Ferrari, you really need to buy 2, one for you and the other for your mechanic.g IB is best suited for commercial/vertical market applications where it is not running 24/7 and where you're not handling gigabytes of data. You may want to check out the Interbase (commerical product) news group at borland.public.interbase.general for more info or http://www.ibphoenix.com/ , http://www.interbase-world.com/ or http://firebird.sourceforge.net/. I hope this helps. Mike - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
Well, then I would buy a $50.00 product using MySQL, and then your $5000.00 product. Oh, and subtract the $500.00 license fee. I already have a license. I prefer to pay a flat fee for each license, not a fee based on the price of your software. John Griffin wrote: Hello David, Since you were kind enough to clarify some matters on licensing I was hoping you would also be open to suggestions. Instead of charging a flat fee for each copy of MySQL that is resold why not charge a percentage up to a certain point. It might make it a bit easier for developers with inexpensive applications to choose your product. If I know that MySQL is going to be, for example, a constant ten percent of my sale cost I can price more competitively for the market. The is defiantly a boon for developers who are selling applications for the forty to sixty dollar market. As they say, ten percent of something is more than ten percent of nothing. If this pricing scheme will not work for MySQL can you please explain why? I am genuinely curious. John - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
Buy a hundred at a time. John Griffin wrote: Actually, I am trying to address the problem of having to buy a $200 MySQL license for every $50 software product I sell. If you have a solution for this problem I would like to know what it is. This is a licensing issue that I haven't found a good solution for. John -Original Message- From: gerald_clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 2:49 PM To: John Griffin Cc: David Axmark; Damir Dezeljin; MySQL List Subject: Re: InterBase vs. Mysql Well, then I would buy a $50.00 product using MySQL, and then your $5000.00 product. Oh, and subtract the $500.00 license fee. I already have a license. I prefer to pay a flat fee for each license, not a fee based on the price of your software. John Griffin wrote: Hello David, Since you were kind enough to clarify some matters on licensing I was hoping you would also be open to suggestions. Instead of charging a flat fee for each copy of MySQL that is resold why not charge a percentage up to a certain point. It might make it a bit easier for developers with inexpensive applications to choose your product. If I know that MySQL is going to be, for example, a constant ten percent of my sale cost I can price more competitively for the market. The is defiantly a boon for developers who are selling applications for the forty to sixty dollar market. As they say, ten percent of something is more than ten percent of nothing. If this pricing scheme will not work for MySQL can you please explain why? I am genuinely curious. John - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: InterBase vs. Mysql
Gerald, One hundred MySQL licenses still works out to $90.00 USD. Even if it worked out to half that would still leave me with no margin and so no compensation for my time. I am trying to find a way of using MySQL in a very low cost market and still have still have pocket change after each sale. The current pricing scheme does not support this market and I am hoping that MySQL is open to suggestions to allow it to support that market. John -Original Message- From: gerald_clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 3:13 PM To: John Griffin Cc: David Axmark; Damir Dezeljin; MySQL List Subject: Re: InterBase vs. Mysql Buy a hundred at a time. John Griffin wrote: Actually, I am trying to address the problem of having to buy a $200 MySQL license for every $50 software product I sell. If you have a solution for this problem I would like to know what it is. This is a licensing issue that I haven't found a good solution for. John -Original Message- From: gerald_clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 2:49 PM To: John Griffin Cc: David Axmark; Damir Dezeljin; MySQL List Subject: Re: InterBase vs. Mysql Well, then I would buy a $50.00 product using MySQL, and then your $5000.00 product. Oh, and subtract the $500.00 license fee. I already have a license. I prefer to pay a flat fee for each license, not a fee based on the price of your software. John Griffin wrote: Hello David, Since you were kind enough to clarify some matters on licensing I was hoping you would also be open to suggestions. Instead of charging a flat fee for each copy of MySQL that is resold why not charge a percentage up to a certain point. It might make it a bit easier for developers with inexpensive applications to choose your product. If I know that MySQL is going to be, for example, a constant ten percent of my sale cost I can price more competitively for the market. The is defiantly a boon for developers who are selling applications for the forty to sixty dollar market. As they say, ten percent of something is more than ten percent of nothing. If this pricing scheme will not work for MySQL can you please explain why? I am genuinely curious. John - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: InterBase vs. Mysql
Actually, I am trying to address the problem of having to buy a $200 MySQL license for every $50 software product I sell. If you have a solution for this problem I would like to know what it is. This is a licensing issue that I haven't found a good solution for. John -Original Message- From: gerald_clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 2:49 PM To: John Griffin Cc: David Axmark; Damir Dezeljin; MySQL List Subject: Re: InterBase vs. Mysql Well, then I would buy a $50.00 product using MySQL, and then your $5000.00 product. Oh, and subtract the $500.00 license fee. I already have a license. I prefer to pay a flat fee for each license, not a fee based on the price of your software. John Griffin wrote: Hello David, Since you were kind enough to clarify some matters on licensing I was hoping you would also be open to suggestions. Instead of charging a flat fee for each copy of MySQL that is resold why not charge a percentage up to a certain point. It might make it a bit easier for developers with inexpensive applications to choose your product. If I know that MySQL is going to be, for example, a constant ten percent of my sale cost I can price more competitively for the market. The is defiantly a boon for developers who are selling applications for the forty to sixty dollar market. As they say, ten percent of something is more than ten percent of nothing. If this pricing scheme will not work for MySQL can you please explain why? I am genuinely curious. John - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
Hi! What to choose - InterBase/FireBird or MySQL - depends on the tasks you are going to solve with your SQL server. InterBase/FireBird is intended for managing a quite large and complicate databases, where a lot of business rules should be realized and stored in common database instead of being realized in each client application separately, where referential integrity plays a significant role, where subselects are often used, and so on. For these purposes InterBase/FireBird provides wide variety of facilities: triggers, stored procedures, exceptions, checks and foreign keys, and so on. But if you need to develop a small database and do it quickly and easily - than you better do it with MySQL. Of course, MySQL is the best solution for web development and site management - because speed becomes one of the main factors here, and because it works very well with PHP. BTW, FireBird costs the same as MySQL and is distributed under open source license. http://www.firebirdsql.org/ And finally I would like to note that we like both of these servers and have already developed administration and development tools for MySQL, InterBase/FireBird and even PostgreSQL. :) http://www.sqlmanager.net Best regards, Vadim Vinokur EMS HiTech http://www.ems-hitech.com - Original Message - From: Maciej Bobrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 4:27 PM Subject: InterBase vs. Mysql Hi, I am a MySQL admin. I like it very much. It is very quick,stable and easy in configuration. But I have a boss, who has been told about InterBase. He told me I should interest in the InterBase, because it is programmed by russian, who made a great project and told him mysql is totaly worse in comparison with the InterBase. Actually he didn't prooved it, he just heared about it from the russians. Did anyone met with the InterBase and can tel me something about it and prove me that the Mysql is BETTER? I need arguments for using the MySQL for a company (lets tell about 100 people, who use it very intensive through the whole day 7 days a week). Best regards, Maciej Bobrowski - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
hi Maciej, the only arguments you can get in favour of mysql is that it's free, and some of its SQL statement are faster than interbase. Interbase has the advantage of having views, stored procedures,triggers,and it's crazily fast. Don't forget that interbase is also written by professionnal on borland campus, guyz who completed a university degree and were assessed and were judged good enough to work with borland; whilst the average developpers for mysql are volunteers who are not paid for what they are doing! I think you should insist on the free aspect of mysql and it's simplicity of use, because for somebody who knows the 2 databases, features wise, robustness wise and speed wise, interbase is far ahead of mysql. _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
Inandjo Taurel wrote: hi Maciej, the only arguments you can get in favour of mysql is that it's free, Free??? Bollocks. I program for a small company producing commercial programs. We have found: MySQL Licence will cost us more than our product price. MySQL sails staff are rude and unfriendly. I contribure to MySQL stuff (in a minor way), and now I am expected to pay as well. Get real! This is the main reason why I am looking at PostgreSQL at the moment, although I've not looked much at Interbase, any good? Either that, or fork MySQL into FreeMySQL, as we can do under the GPL, and not charge our selves :) Ben - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
Inandjo, Subject: Re: InterBase vs. Mysql From: Inandjo Taurel Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:48:53 + ... Don't forget that interbase is also written by professionnal on borland campus, guyz who completed a university degree and were assessed and were judged good enough to work with borland; whilst the average developpers for mysql are volunteers who are not paid for what they are doing! most MySQL developers are paid employees of MySQL AB who receive salary from MySQL AB. I hold a PhD in mathematical logic from the University of Helsinki. I think you should insist on the free aspect of mysql and it's simplicity of use, because for somebody who knows the 2 databases, features wise, robustness wise and speed wise, interbase is far ahead of mysql. Can you refer to some published benchmark where InterBase beats MySQL? Best regards, Heikki Tuuri Innobase Oy sql query - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
MySQL Licence will cost us more than our product price. Wow, what a company!! how much do you sell your products ?? MySQL sails staff are rude and unfriendly. Can't tell, anytime i needed help, i used this forum, and i rather met some real interesting guyz and dedicated guyz (widenius, egorov, dubois...) and others ready to help! I contribure to MySQL stuff (in a minor way), and now I am expected to pay as well. Get real! truely, get real, where else can you find this combination of things(low licence cost,ease of installation and maintenance,active forum with prompt reponses and solutions!) for almost free! This is the main reason why I am looking at PostgreSQL at the moment, although I've not looked much at Interbase, any good? have a look at interbase, you will be amazed! as for postgresql, the best is to get the linux version which is complete,stable and robust. Either that, or fork MySQL into FreeMySQL, as we can do under the GPL, and not charge our selves :) Good luck, if you mean it. We'll see what you'll bring out!! Ben _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
hi heikki, thanks for correcting me on the salary aspect. Most benchmark published actually give credit to mysql when it comes to Mysql Vs Interbase, but as an end user, the best tests are the one i conduct myself in my premises. Therefor when i say that mysql Vs interbase definitely goes to interbase, understand that it's the result of my own experience! Bear in mind that all the benchmark published can give you all the credit possible, if my experience as an enduser proove me otherwise, i'll tend to believe what i can see and proove, not what i can read in an article! So my word to any enduser would be : conduct your own experiences... and see for yourself. _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
Hi. Just a little correction. On Tue 2003-02-18 at 12:44:39 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Maciej, I don't know much about Interbase, but MySQL is for some cases a very good choice! Some database engineers would say MySQL isn't a database because it has no transactions by know (in a stable version). MySQL 3.23 has InnoDB support and therefore transactions and is the stable version since for two years now. The only change with 4.0 is that InnoDB is going to be part of the MySQL package instead of MySQL-Max, as it was with 3.23. But think about, if you really need this!!! In versions 4.x (coming soon in a stable version) transactions, subselects etc. would be available! Soon coming as stable is 4.0 (it is already good enough for production use, IMHO), but sub-selects are in 4.1, which is still declared alpha. The main features of 4.0 as listed on http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/News-4.0.x.html are: - a query cache (may vastly improve performance for many apps) - improved FULLTEXT indexing - MERGE table improvements - support for UNION in select - libmysqld, a embedded version of MySQL - more fine grained privileges (with GRANT) - dynamic server variables (change the configuration on the fly) - rewrite of replication with new features - and some other stuff HTH, Benjamin. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Tue 2003-02-18 at 12:02:59 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] This is the main reason why I am looking at PostgreSQL at the moment, although I've not looked much at Interbase, any good? Either that, or fork MySQL into FreeMySQL, as we can do under the GPL, and not charge our selves :) Aehem. There seems to be some misconception here. Either your program is fine with MySQL being GPL or not. If it is (and your forking example would work for you) either by using MySQL in a way that your program is not required to be GPL'ed or by GPL'ing your program, you need no commercial license from MySQL AB either, and you can already distribute your program with MySQL without the need of a fork or whatever. Or your program needs a commercial license, than forking MySQL would not help, because you still have to adhere to the GPL. The only reason MySQL AB can hand out a commercial license is because they are also the Copyright holders, which you aren't even after forking. HTH, Benjamin. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Inandjo Taurel wrote: hi Maciej, the only arguments you can get in favour of mysql is that it's free, and some of its SQL statement are faster than interbase. Interbase has the advantage of having views, stored procedures,triggers,and it's crazily fast. Don't forget that interbase is also written by professionnal on borland campus, guyz who completed a university degree and were assessed and were judged good enough to work with borland; whilst the average developpers for mysql are volunteers who are not paid for what they are doing! Most of the developers for MySQL are 'professional labour' with 'university degrees' who are _paid_ by MySQL AB to develop the MySQL product. We also had to be 'assessed good enough to work for MySQL AB', and the interview is around 2 years long, because a large part of getting your foot in the door is based on your participation in the MySQL user community, and the fact that you've demonstrated in-depth knowledge of MySQL and MySQL internals. We do get a large amount of effort from the community (which we really, really appreciate), but a large majority of it is in answering questions in the mailing lists, testing, filing good bug reports and in providing connectivity to the database from other languages and tools (PERL, PHP, Java, Ruby, et-al). This community effort is what makes MySQL (and all other open-source databases) a special breed, and available to many people for varied uses, at low-to-no cost. Many of these uses were not even imagined by the people behind the core database software! -Mark - -- MySQL 2003 Users Conference - http://www.mysql.com/events/uc2003/ For technical support contracts, visit https://order.mysql.com/?ref=mmma __ ___ ___ __ / |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / Mark Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] / /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ MySQL AB, Full-Time Developer - JDBC/Java /_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ Flossmoor (Chicago), IL USA ___/ www.mysql.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.90 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+UkBMtvXNTca6JD8RAvxNAKCF6d07cZBY0Ia+hevQ70dY+NusiwCfdnXM GVCSUGL+qZKP/Fblv9nBVzg= =lboH -END PGP SIGNATURE- - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
Hi. On Tue 2003-02-18 at 11:48:53 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi Maciej, the only arguments you can get in favour of mysql is that it's free, and some of its SQL statement are faster than interbase. Well, and outstanding support, IMHO. Interbase has the advantage of having views, stored procedures,triggers,and it's crazily fast. Don't forget that interbase is also written by professionnal on borland campus, guyz who completed a university degree and were assessed and were judged good enough to work with borland; whilst the average developpers for mysql are volunteers who are not paid for what they are doing! You seem to have some greater misconception about the development of MySQL. Please don't make such statements when you don't know the background. Although MySQL had some great contributions (in source code or otherwise) from volunteers, it is mainly developed by the staff of professionals of MySQL AB. So the speak about university degrees is pointless (aside from that, why do you think volunteers wouldn't have a degree...). I think you should insist on the free aspect of mysql and it's simplicity of use, because for somebody who knows the 2 databases, features wise, robustness wise and speed wise, interbase is far ahead of mysql. I give you features wise. The other two, robustness and speed wise, I see no indication for. HTH, Benjamin. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Tue 2003-02-18 at 12:57:04 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Most benchmark published actually give credit to mysql when it comes to Mysql Vs Interbase, but as an end user, the best tests are the one i conduct myself in my premises. Therefor when i say that mysql Vs interbase definitely goes to interbase, understand that it's the result of my own experience! Hm. So you take the limited experience of your use case and make general statements from that. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely believe you that InterBase is faster for you in your use cases. But that doesn't mean that it is in general. As you can see from the reactions, it would help if you stated your personal experience as such. Bear in mind that all the benchmark published can give you all the credit possible, if my experience as an enduser proove me otherwise, i'll tend to believe what i can see and proove, not what i can read in an article! I don't see how this is less biased than a benchmark might be. Of course, it is the relevant part for you personally, in accordance with the next statement. So my word to any enduser would be : conduct your own experiences... and see for yourself. Absolutely. Seconded. Bye, Benjamin. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi I am getting tired of this argument. This is the MySQL Users mail list, not a list to slagg of MySQL, its features or staff. Constructive comment is always welcome, but people on this list have chosen to use MySQL because of what it is and will become. They accept the GNU license or they take out a MySQL license. One of the main advantages of MySQL of other GNU databases is speed. Whilst triggers, functions, views, locking and constraints are all nice, they all place load on a DBMS. If you need them, so be it, if not use MySQL and enjoy the speed. All the best Simon - -- Simon Windsor Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 01454 617689 Mob: 07720 447385 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+UkbNSJvgVrMNWjYRAiNzAKDT+k7vzCYnwUmSJzYmKN2SYM6VqwCgzs2v TOC3NALEzeSgUnqHpN5VK+M= =+OEQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
I'm not here to slag MySQL, but this point is extremely interesting. Benjamin Pflugmann wrote: Aehem. There seems to be some misconception here. Either your program is fine with MySQL being GPL or not. If it is (and your forking example would work for you) either by using MySQL in a way that your program is not required to be GPL'ed or by GPL'ing your program, you need no commercial license from MySQL AB either, and you can already distribute your program with MySQL without the need of a fork or whatever. Or your program needs a commercial license, than forking MySQL would not help, because you still have to adhere to the GPL. The only reason MySQL AB can hand out a commercial license is because they are also the Copyright holders, which you aren't even after forking. There is also some middle ground here. Which is the overlap of the two. Where the user (me) wants to use a OSS DBMS, is happy to forward the source code, inform the customer of the GPL licence etc. But at the same time produce a commercial application which then uses this installed DBMS server/client, without effecting the GPL package. MySQL say that this is an extension of the application, and therefore breaks the GPL, and therefore a licence is needed. They are however, the only big GPL user who thinks this way. I note for example the number of companies selling commercial CGI software designed to run on Apache, server/client, to which no licence is mandatory. Also Sendmail, GCC, other DBMS's, and indeed GNU/Linux it's self. None of these very large groups consider a licence *mandatory* for use when supporting a commercial application. I use the term 'mandatory', they may still choose to purchase a licence. If they did insist on a licence, a very large number of very large companies would have to withdraw a very large number of products. Eg, IBM who use Sendmail to support their commercial email servers. Therefore, I can see no reason why not somebody could fork MySQL into FreeSQL. It would take a few hours at SorceForge, a 'sed' of MySQL into FreeSQL', and a good posting to Slashdot. Keep it 100% GPL without breaking either the wording or the spirit of the document. Remove all reference to copyright material belonging to MySQL. It's either GPL or cpryright, not both. Then use this without commercial licence... BTW, as to another posting. 'Either accept the GPL or purchase a licence'. I do note another option (apart from forking): Use something else. Is MySQL really that good? I do worry that with arrogant statements like this, this is exactly what people will do, in droves. If that's okay with you, well... HTH, Benjamin. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
Ben Clewett wrote: MySQL say that this is an extension of the application, and therefore breaks the GPL, and therefore a licence is needed. They are however, the only big GPL user who thinks this way. No they're not. The issue is not the use of the server (as previously discussed a few weeks back), but the library. If you use the older library version (which is LGPL'd), you can basically do as you please as you believe you should be able to. As the new library is under the GPL, you can't legally link it to a non-GPL-compatible program at all (without purchasing a different license). Therefore, I can see no reason why not somebody could fork MySQL into FreeSQL. You forget that (as someone else pointed out, perhaps Ben) MySQL's Copyright still lies with MySQL AB. You can fork the code and modify and distribute it _under the GPL_ but that doesn't buy you anything -- you don't then have the right to link it against a commercial program or even to relicense it. All you have is a renamed version of MySQL that is still under the GPL. That's not what you're hoping for, is it? It's either GPL or cpryright, not both. Then use this without commercial licence... You obviously need a good lawyer. The GPL is a license agreement, not a Copyleft statement. Copyright still applies (as it does to all works) and the license specifically states that. In fact, the GPL text says that if you don't agree to all the limitations of the GPL then you simply fall under those of international Copyright law, which are much harsher (and still apply). You need to re-read the GPL a few times and pay a lawyer to help you understand it. MySQL really that good? I do worry that with arrogant statements like this, this is exactly what people will do, in droves. Many people here are perfectly happy with the GPL, I might add. I license all my MySQL-related code under the GPL. I don't distribute it to anyone, so its not terribly relevant, but its well marked and noted as being either GPL'd or for personal use only (most of which is GPL'd as well). I don't write much commercial, non-GPL code. I write a lot of commercial and GPL'd code though, and so do many other people (like MySQL AB). You might want to consider it too. -- Michael T. Babcock C.T.O., FibreSpeed Ltd. http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
This will be my last posting. I don't belive I am being constructive and have no wish to instantly be hated by the whole of MySQL. Michael T. Babcock wrote: Ben Clewett wrote: MySQL say that this is an extension of the application, and therefore breaks the GPL, and therefore a licence is needed. They are however, the only big GPL user who thinks this way. No they're not. The issue is not the use of the server (as previously discussed a few weeks back), but the library. If you use the older library version (which is LGPL'd), you can basically do as you please as you believe you should be able to. As the new library is under the GPL, you can't legally link it to a non-GPL-compatible program at all (without purchasing a different license). What you say is that the API is in my application. The API is part of MySQL. Therefore my application is GPL or needs a licence. Therefore, if I was to use ODBC, I would not be using your API in my application, and could install MySQL under the GPL and use my application without licence? (If I so choose.) You forget that (as someone else pointed out, perhaps Ben) MySQL's Copyright still lies with MySQL AB. You can fork the code and modify and distribute it _under the GPL_ but that doesn't buy you anything -- you don't then have the right to link it against a commercial program or even to relicense it. All you have is a renamed version of MySQL that is still under the GPL. That's not what you're hoping for, is it? This may be true. I am a programmer, not a solicitor. It does seem to fly in the face of Ritchard Stallman's origional idea and intent of the GPL. So your software may be folked, but then not used as it then violates some other law. If that's the case, so be it. I better copyright all my GPL projects ASAP... Many people here are perfectly happy with the GPL, I might add. I license all my MySQL-related code under the GPL. I don't distribute it to anyone, so its not terribly relevant, but its well marked and noted as being either GPL'd or for personal use only (most of which is GPL'd as well). I don't write much commercial, non-GPL code. I write a lot of commercial and GPL'd code though, and so do many other people (like MySQL AB). You might want to consider it too. I wish I had that sort of job I would prefer this option. Unfortunatelly I am a dying breed of employed programmer selling commercial applications. Maybe my own applications will be replaced with a GPL ones. I might even wright them my self. Until then, saving money on erronious licence fees payes for my family to eat. Where, if I may, I would love to leave this Ben - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Tue 2003-02-18 at 16:11:11 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Benjamin Pflugmann wrote: [...] There is also some middle ground here. Which is the overlap of the two. No. Either the way you distribute your software is GPL-compliant or not. If it is not, you need a commercial license, if it is, you are fine. Forking the source requires it to be still under the GPL, so the license requirements have not changed. MySQL say that this is an extension of the application, and therefore breaks the GPL, and therefore a licence is needed. Okay, you can argue, if MySQL AB's interpretation of the GPL is correct, but this changes nothing. Even if you fork, they will still own the copyright on a major part of the code and can still sue you, if they like (I do not mean to imply that they would be fast to sue). They are however, the only big GPL user who thinks this way. I note for example the number of companies selling commercial CGI software designed to run on Apache, Wrong example. Apache is not licensed under GPL (it's Apache License). to which no licence is mandatory. Also Sendmail, Neither is sendmail.(it's BSD license). GCC, Have not seen many packages that add on GCC. And derived output of GCC is explicitly excluded from being GPL. other DBMS's, Examples? PostgreSQL is not GPL'ed, InterBase neither (I am not sure if that is still current, but last time I looked it was not). and indeed GNU/Linux it's self. That's a valid reference in that Linus Torvald has indeed said that he does not think kernel modules have to be GPL'ed, but then, Linus is not someone who much cares about such issues. [...] Therefore, I can see no reason why not somebody could fork MySQL into FreeSQL. It would take a few hours at SorceForge, a 'sed' of MySQL into FreeSQL', and a good posting to Slashdot. Keep it 100% GPL without breaking either the wording or the spirit of the document. Remove all reference to copyright material belonging to MySQL. It's either GPL or cpryright, not both. No offense meant, but you seem to have a lack of understanding of how the GPL works. It cannot work without copyright. It is based on it. It sounds as if you base your opinion on hearsay. I suggest to read the GPL FAQ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html. Or talk to an lawyer if you need. Then use this without commercial licence... BTW, as to another posting. 'Either accept the GPL or purchase a licence'. I do note another option (apart from forking): Use something else. Is MySQL really that good? I do worry that with arrogant statements like this, this is exactly what people will do, in droves. What's the problem? Do use whatever fits best with your need. The point of the statement is that there is no right to have MySQL without cost. You can have it with without cost, if you abide by the GPL. Or else you can buy it. Or you can use something else. Freedom of choice. Although that may sound arrogant, it is not meant this way. It is meant as being realitistic: The people who put a lot of hard work into making MySQL have chosen the GPL. So you should respect that. One could also see it the other way: it sounds kind of arrogant of people trying to tell MySQL AB how they have to license their software. You are free to choose the product of your choice. MySQL AB is free to choose the license(s) of their choice. Bye, Benjamin. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
Ben Clewett wrote: What you say is that the API is in my application. The API is part of MySQL. Therefore my application is GPL or needs a licence. Please don't confuse API and library. The libmysql or libmysqld libraries are GPL'd. Anything linked against them is automatically also GPL'd (unless licensed otherwise). The API simply describes how to use the library. Therefore, if I was to use ODBC, I would not be using your API in my application, and could install MySQL under the GPL and use my application without licence? (If I so choose.) Technically speaking, if you had an ODBC server and MySQL server installed and connected with an LGPL or BSD or commercial ODBC client to those services and never modified or linked against those services or the mysql library in any way, you'd be clear of the GPL as far as the MySQL library is concerned. Some will argue that, of course, but claiming that connecting over a network port to an ODBC server is somehow linking against that server is pretty tough. That said, ODBC doesn't give you all the features of the library. I better copyright all my GPL projects ASAP... Everything you write _is_ Copyright to you (unless its a work-for-hire, etc.) automatically. Registering those Copyrights is often unnecessary (sign a copy with PGP, E-mail it to someone, have them sign it and store a copy of it; that'll pretty much prove you wrote it for many cases). Maybe my own applications will be replaced with a GPL ones. I might even wright them my self. Until then, saving money on erronious licence fees payes for my family to eat. I might add that I believe most of the MySQL AB programmers' families do in fact eat. They're paid. As are the programmers for ReiserFS (also GPL'd). These types of business models are different, but not unprofitable. -- Michael T. Babcock C.T.O., FibreSpeed Ltd. http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Tue 2003-02-18 at 17:06:17 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This will be my last posting. I don't belive I am being constructive and have no wish to instantly be hated by the whole of MySQL. [...] Oh, I do not have anything at all against you. I just tried to correct what I saw as a misconception of yours. If anything of that sounded offensive to you, I apologize, as that was not my intention. Blame it on me not being a native speaker, if you want. Hope you have a nice day, Benjamin. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 05:06:17PM +, Ben Clewett wrote: This will be my last posting. I don't belive I am being constructive and have no wish to instantly be hated by the whole of MySQL. Probably wasn't wise to make a post about how you felt MySQL was expensive (huh?) and their staff rude, then. Don't worry, it'll only be archived publically for the rest of eternity Therefore, if I was to use ODBC, I would not be using your API in my application, and could install MySQL under the GPL and use my application without licence? (If I so choose.) If all you're doing is connecting to a MySQL server, without using the MySQL client libraries, then I fail to see what relevance MySQL's license has to you. However, IANAL. If your product is actually going to make any money anyway then it will be worth consulting someone who is. Michael T. Babcock wrote: You forget that (as someone else pointed out, perhaps Ben) MySQL's Copyright still lies with MySQL AB. You can fork the code and modify and distribute it _under the GPL_ but that doesn't buy you anything -- you don't then have the right to link it against a commercial program or even to relicense it. All you have is a renamed version of MySQL that is still under the GPL. That's not what you're hoping for, is it? This may be true. I am a programmer, not a solicitor. It does seem to fly in the face of Ritchard Stallman's origional idea and intent of the GPL. So your software may be folked, but then not used as it then violates some other law. If that's the case, so be it. I better copyright all my GPL projects ASAP... Everything you produce has your copyright, but the instructions for using the GPL do specifically tell you to put Copyright you in it. AFAIK the default amount of rights someone has with your product is none at all. The copyright holder then decides what you can do with it by means of the license, the GPL being a popular example in the open source/free software world. I find it quite amusing that you are going on about Richard Stallman in this, your rant about how MySQL AB won't let you use their GPL software in your _closed source_ commercial product. If on the other hand, your product is GPL itself, or you don't actually need to use any of MySQL AB's GPL'd stuff, then I fail to see what your problem actually is. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
Firstly excuse my poor english ;))) I read the entire mail thread. I'm useing MySQL for our own data storage (I use it to store our oceanographic data for internal use) - I guess that I don't need a commercial license for this. I have another question ... if I will do a commercial program in future which will use MySQL as backend, do I need to buy only one commercial license to link the program or does any customer need a commercial license if I don't want that my code to be GPLed? Regards, Dezo - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Interbase vs MySQL
At 05:28 AM 6/3/2002, you wrote: Hi all. I'm looking for a comparison between Interbase and MySQL. Thanks in advance. Iago. lago See http://lists.mysql.com/php/search.php?ps=10q=interbaseps=20m=and. Mike - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
